R v C, CA

The Court of Appeal of South Australia considered an appeal by the appellant against his convictions for various sexual offences against a complainant, V1, who was between nine and 15 years old during the alleged offending. The appeal was brought on six grounds, primarily concerning the directions given by the trial judge to the jury regarding the evidence, particularly the use of complaint evidence and the adequacy of warnings about corroboration.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the permissible use of complaint evidence under section 34M of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA), and whether the summing up as a whole, including any directions on corroboration and the expression of the judge's own opinion, was fair and accurate. Specifically, the appellant argued that the judge had improperly restricted the jury's use of complaint evidence, thereby prejudicing the defence.

The Court found that the trial judge had discharged his obligations under the *Evidence Act* in light of the issues that arose during the trial. The judge's directions regarding the complaint evidence were deemed adequate, and the court rejected the argument that the judge had prohibited the jury from using the evidence to assess the consistency of the complainants' accounts. The Court also considered that the summing up, viewed in its entirety, provided the jury with the necessary assistance to consider the numerous charges. The Court noted that arguments relying on previous decisions were based on isolated observations taken out of context.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and affirmed the appellant's convictions.